delete_event

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses the important traits: permission requirements (owner, admin, manager), and the non-obvious fallback where an invited-only user merely leaves and the event persists for others. It does not state irreversibility, confirmation requirements, or how recurring events are handled, which keeps this below a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, both load-bearing, with the primary action front-loaded and the permission/fallback nuance following. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the key access rules and the surprising outcome for invited users. It leaves open whether deletion is permanent and what the response contains, which is a minor but real gap for a destructive operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

One parameter at 0% schema coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that the id must refer to an event the caller can act on (own event or shared-calendar event with admin/manager rights), adding real meaning beyond the bare 'event_id: string' schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete an event') and immediately qualifies scope by ownership and role. It also distinguishes the operation from the sibling-looking alternative behavior ('you leave the event instead'), so an agent knows exactly which action will occur.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives concrete preconditions for use: the event must be your own, or you must be admin/manager in a shared calendar. It further explains the fallback path when you were merely invited, which functions as clear when-this-does-something-else guidance. It does not mention update_event or delete_calendar as alternatives, but the conditional behavior covers the main ambiguity.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.